Let's get this party started with http://yuletide.livejournal.com/1193202.html

http://yuletide.livejournal.com/1193202.html?thread=18015986#t18015986 debirlfan replied to her post with this comment. Yuletide should definitely go the self-policing route like Parallels does. I have tons of big fandoms I'd love to request.

or, 'The rules suck, so someone with a professional qualification in rules should write new rules!'

I'm rolling my eyes, because either they mean "but I don't have that qualification, so not ME, make it someone else's job", or "And what a coincidence, I have that qualification, appoint me to write the rules!!"

Maybe they should actually give re-writing a go, with a sample rule, and see how far they get.

Huh. While I agree that the first comment she made came across a little brusque, the second one and the post she made on the admin comm actually came off a little more pleasant than I've grown accustom to from her. (The fact that she actually made a post directing peoples attention to the discussion post gives me hope that they are actually going to take peoples concerns with the ridiculously convoluted rules seriously this time around.)

Elseworlds/Canon AUs

What do you really think of canon AUs and Elseworlds and eligibility? Is a difference between stories written/produced by separate people/entities (Elementary vs. BBC Sherlock) and stories written by the same creator AUing their own properties (where creator can be a company, etc.)?

Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

In every job I've done, I've been taught to define the problem and the steps to achieving the solution before trying to change things. In other words, be proactive rather than reactive.Everyone on the main comm is arguing all the different points at once, to sort it out for myself, I sat down and wrote it out as I saw it and tried to put the questions/problem in (an) order that might make it more systematic.

[Steps to defining the problem]Step one: Yuletide by definition of its faq is: an annual fic exchange for rare and obscure fandoms. So defining what is rare and obscure is the first step.While there may be some disagreement on the numbers/archived used, most people feel that as long as the numbers are applied equally across the board, everyone will accept it, for the most part. But maybe there should be one post to discuss the numbers/archives/general.

Step two:Once everyone more or less (possibly grudgingly) agrees on the definition of above, we run into the franchise problem. (I'm going to use Star Trek, Marvel/DC, and Sherlock as examples because they seem to be the ones thrown around most. Also, since I can't think of a good all encompassing term for re-imaginings, spinoffs, remakes etc I'm just going to call it sub-canons).

Problem AThe question is whether over-arching fandoms should be thrown out wholesale or individual sub-canons be allowed as long as they are under the cut-offThere are some people who are in favor of getting rid of everything, but I think the majority would prefer to keep the sub-canons in. But maybe coming to a consensus on that first would be good. Because, if I'm wrong, and most people agree to get rid of the big franchises, then the rest is really unnecessary.

Problem BAfter that comes the argument of what is sub-canon versus not. Which is where the Character Limit idea first came in. Most Star Trek movies/shows/books would fall under main canon. But then there's books like the Rihannsu which aren't. To keep people from using it to sneak not-rare Spock or Kirk (who, pretty much are the same character across fandom), the Character Limit rule was created.

Problem CBut this was a problem for fandoms like Sherlock and comics where the movie canon(s) are different from the book are different (sometimes) from the tv versions. To partially fix this, the 100 year rule was added. Which fixed things for Sherlock type fandoms but led to:

Problem DComics fans (rightly or wrongly) feeling like there were being slighted and ignored. I don't read comics myself so I can't say how different the MCU version of Iron Man is from say, 616, but I have recently started watching the cartoons, and he's very different from the one in Iron Man: Armored Adventures.And just the difference between the Batmans off Adam West, Michael Keaton and Christian Bale is significant.So, in order to fix Problem D, we'd have to make special rules for defining sub-canons for comics and related franchises, which leads to:

Problem E and FE is that if special rules for comics are made, it just adds more work and more "extra" rules. And more strife between comics and non-comics fan.

F creating those special rules in a way that is agreeable and solves the rare/not rare character problem

And getting even a majority of the 2000 plus Yuletiders to agree on anything is about as easy as herding cats.

Re: Defining the problem(s) w/ YT rules

My personal opinion, (which has flaws as well but no matter what solution is achieved will have flaws)

Step 1: Make the eligibility 2:1 for ffnet:AO3 (either 250/500, or 500/1000*), if it's over or under make a combined cut off (375/750) and make it hard and fast, so even 1 over is out.*I know some people think it's too high but I think if we go with the higher number, it is answer to the badfic/fusion/crossover debate that comes up with borderline fandoms.

Step 2: People can nominate whatever they want, however they want and trust people in the post-nomination cleanup to point out sketchy things or the best way to combine/separate sub-fandoms for best signup possibilities

Step 3: Get rid of all character rules. Risk the handful of people who might try to sneak in MCU Loki or ST:TOS Spock in exchange for the ease and lack of confusion and antagonism. The rules haven't (and won't ever) stop people from asking for crossovers with megafandoms or characters who haven't been nominated.

Controversial Opinions

1 - Yuletide is whatever the current mods want it to be. It does not belong to the participants, no matter how hard we whine to get our way. If the mods decide the only fandoms that qualify are those that happened between 1850 and 1860 with qualifying characters only those whose names start with J, then that's their call. It's their fest and they can limit it or expand it however the hell they want.

2 - Fans pissed about the borderline cases and the obscure "not your character" calls not only can but should start their own fests, and they should start the groundwork now. The comics fans are upset about this property allowed in but not this character from this one, fine, revive JBBS or start a similar new one that allows all comics characters. This is the time to gauge interest and figure out rules. Comics fans get the fics and characters they want, and Yuletide yearly wank isn't consumed by how convoluted the rules need to be to exclude Steve/Tony but allow the real Gwen Stacy. Same with the anime fans and the manga fans and the Sherlock Holmes adaptation fans who sincerely believe the Elementary Sherlock Holmes is obscure. You want to have a fest where the character will be allowed, and allow book verse and Study in Emerald, but no BBC Sherlock? Start it now, make that the rule, and start advertising. The truly rare fandoms can still be a part of the rare fandoms fest, and we all get more fic in the bargain.

Yuletide was never meant to be everything to every fan. Stop trying to shove more in, and start branching out instead.

Re: Controversial Opinions

Point 2 however is bullshit, and for one very important reason, namely that Yuletide claims to be pan-fandom, with all genres and mediums equally welcome, only qualifier being rarity. Until the mods explicitly change that (see point 1) then they need to keep accommodating everyone they have invited to the party, however annoying they may be. And that does require treating them consistently.

My controversial opinion: the Yuletide rules aren't actually that complicated in the majority of cases. Most people get their noms, requests and offers done easily. Those people should just be grateful, and let the ones that do have borderline issues make their case to the mods without their interference.